On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:58:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

wrote:
>> On 13 Jan 2005 10:54:20 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
>>>>>>>>or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and
>>>
>>>best-known
>>>
>>>>>>>>justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
>>>>>>>>for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows:
>>>
>>>Killing
>>>
>>>>>>>>an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed
>>>
>>>but
>>>
>>>>>>>>for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its
>>>
>>>existence
>>>
>>>>>>>>for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for
>>>
>>>every
>>>
>>>>>>>>animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought
>>>
>>>into
>>>
>>>>>>>>being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy
>>>
>>>its
>>>
>>>>>>>>existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
>>>>>>>>Nozick 38).
>>>
>>>The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared
>>>to never having existed.
>>
>>
>> · When "ARAs" Gonad say things like: No animals
>> benefit from farming
>
>No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
>you say they do is that coming into existence is
>"better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>
>
>>>>
>>>> It is consideration for animals which
>>>
>>>It is a foolish consideration of some mythical, imaginary "benefit"
>>>they get from living. They do not derive any benefit from living,
>>>compared with never living at all.
>>
>>
>> · When "ARAs" say things like: No animals
>> benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
>> the animals gain nothing from the arrangement
>
>They don't. They are not better off for having
>existed, versus never having existed.

Explain how you know that Gonad.

>>>> I don't believe any animals have rights.
>>>
>>>You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have
>>>a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they
>>>want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is
>>>absurd for you to claim you don't believe this.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>albeit turned rather upside-down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
>>>>>>>>pig "logic
>>>
>>>It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want
>>>to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they
>>>have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live.
>>
>
>>>>>I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth,
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in
>>>ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>by nature they are
>>>>>very clean animals.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that either.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some
>>>kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all.
>>>
>>>You believe LOTS of unreal things.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>but it's irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer
>>>
>>>What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of
>>>moral justification for killing them.
>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>> No, it's much more than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, it's a rhetorical device.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The author is very obviously trying to
>>>>>>persuade people to feel that
>>>
>>>that causing pigs to live is not a moral justification for killing
>>>them. That is what the author is trying to show people. He does a
>>>good job of it, too. In fact, he does such a good job of it that you
>>>can't even begin to address it,
>>
>>
>> Real pigs are not capable of any of
>
>The author is saying that causing pigs to live is not a
>moral justification for killing them.

The author created a fantasy about a talking pig who knows
many things that no pig could ever know, to encourage people
to have the false impression that pigs suffer from the knowledge
that they will be killed.
Meanwhile here in reality billions of animals continue to
experience life only because humans raise them to eat, and many
of them have decent lives. Too bad for those of you who hate it.